Reassessing the Safety of Pill-in-the-Pocket Propafenone.

The current guidelines state that propafenone can be used in combination with a beta-blocker or a calcium channel blocker for pharmacologic cardioversion of recent-onset atrial fibrillation in patients without structural heart disease. To prevent the conversion from atrial fibrillation to atrial flutter with a rapid ventricular rate, it is recommended to administer propafenone following the administration of a beta-blocker or a calcium channel blocker. However, this combination carries the potential risk of cardiogenic shock. There are several scenarios where this combination can lead to shock, attributed to the variable pharmacokinetics of propafenone among individuals and its significant drug interactions with commonly used AV nodal blockers, such as metoprolol and diltiazem. Additionally, a significant proportion of the population has genetic polymorphisms that affect the metabolism of these medications. While pill-in-the-pocket propafenone is also employed in outpatient settings, unexpected severe and life-threatening reactions have been reported. In this context, we present a case report of severe propafenone toxicity in a closely monitored inpatient setting aimed at converting atrial fibrillation.

Cryptogenic Stroke Caused by a Newly Diagnosed Patent Foramen Ovale in a Healthy Young Adult.

The foramen ovale serves as an opening between the right and left atria at the site of the fossa ovalis in the fetus during uterine life. During fetal life, it makes it possible for venous blood from the maternal placenta with oxygen and nutrients to bypass the immature fetal lung and get transported to the left side of the heart and onto the systemic circulation. This hole from the right to the left atrium is usually occluded at the time of birth or shortly after birth, due to increased pressures in the left-sided cardiac cavities associated with normal breathing during delivery or shortly afterwards. If the foramen ovale remains open and fails to fuse beyond the first year of life, it is known as a patent foramen ovale (PFO). PFO occurs when, during fetal life, the septum primum and secundum, which develop and overlap normally, fail to fuse at birth. This results in the persistence of communication between the right and left atria. Paradoxical embolism from the right to the left side of the heart can occur through a PFO, causing a cryptogenic stroke or embolic stroke of an undetermined source in an otherwise healthy adult. There was a debate on the long-term benefits of closure. However, data from the randomized evaluation of the recurrent stroke comparing PFO closure to established current standard of care treatment (RESPECT) trial and two randomized trials (patent foramen ovale closure or anticoagulants versus antiplatelet therapy to prevent stroke recurrence (CLOSE) and reduction by dutasteride of prostate cancer events (REDUCE)) have clarified that there is a benefit to closure. In this case report, we describe a patient who presented with cryptogenic stroke, the investigations, imaging modalities for diagnosis of PFO, and procedure for closure. We also describe long-term outcomes and management following closure.

Pacing-Induced Cardiomyopathy in Leadless and Traditional Pacemakers: A Single-Center Retrospective Analysis.

BACKGROUND:  Pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM) is a clinical syndrome that is characterized by a drop in the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) due to chronic high-burden right ventricular (RV) pacing. It has been postulated that leadless pacemakers (LPs) cause decreased risk of PICM compared to transvenous pacemakers (TVPs), but the exact risk reduction is unknown. METHODS: We performed a single-center retrospective analysis of adults who received an LP or TVP between January 1, 2014, and April 1, 2022, and had echocardiograms before and after the pacemaker implant. This study's outcomes were the RV pacing percentage, change in EF, the need for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) upgrade, and follow-up duration. A Wilcoxon rank-sum test calculated the change in EF. RV time, defined as the duration from pacemaker placement to the follow-up echocardiogram in months multiplied by the RV pacing percentage, served as a surrogate for how long the RV was paced. RESULTS: A total of 614 patients were screened, and 198 patients were included in the study, where 72 received LP and 126 received TVP. The median follow-up was 480 days. The average of the reported RV percentage pacing was 63.43% for LP and 71.30% for TVP (p=0.14). The incidence of PICM and CRT upgrade was 44% and 9.7% in the LP group and 37% and 9.5% in the TVP group (p=0.3 and p>0.9), respectively. After accounting for age, sex, LP versus TVP, atrioventricular nodal ablation, RV pacing percentage, and follow-up duration, univariate analysis showed that RV time was significantly different between the two types of pacemakers (13.54 ± 14.21 months (LP) versus 9.26 ± 13.95 months (TVP), p=0.009). The difference in RV time between patients who underwent CRT upgrade and those who did not was statistically insignificant (12.11 ± 14.47 months (no CRT) versus 9.19 ± 12.00 months (CRT), p=0.5). CONCLUSIONS: This analysis demonstrated that the incidence of PICM was high in both groups (44% (LP) versus 37% (TVP)), despite significantly more RV time in patients with LP. There was no difference in CRT upgrade between LP and TVP.

Meta-Analysis Comparing Distal Radial Artery Approach Versus Traditional for Coronary Procedures.

Distal radial artery access (DRA) is recommended as the preferred approach over the traditional proximal radial artery access (TRA) for coronary procedures; however, there are limited randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the 2. We conducted an updated meta-analysis of all RCTs from inception to July 26, 2021, that compared DRA versus TRA in patients who underwent coronary procedures. The statistical analysis was performed using a random effect model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A total of 5 RCTs were included with a total of 1,005 patients. A pooled analysis of the data showed that the rate of successful cannulation was similar between the 2 arms (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.07, p = 0.16, I2 = 94%). The rate of radial artery spasm significantly favored the DRA arm as compared with TRA (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.75, p = 0.0007, I2 = 0%). Significantly more patients from the DRA arm required alternative arterial access. Moreover, the DRA group had an insignificantly decreased rates of radial artery occlusion (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.20, p = 0.08, I2 = 46%) and early discharge after transradial stenting of coronary arteries access-site hematomas (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.149, p = 0.22, I2 = 0%). The mean time for hemostasis was significantly shorter in the DRA arm (mean difference -6.64, 95% CI -10.37 to -2.90, p = 0.0005, I2 = 88%). In conclusion, DRA should be considered as a viable, effective, and safe arterial access method for patients who underwent coronary procedures.

The Rationale and Emerging Use of Neoadjuvant Immune Checkpoint Blockade for Solid Malignancies.

Unprecedented advances in the treatment of cancer have occurred through the use of immunotherapy, with several agents currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of widespread metastatic disease across cancer types. Immune checkpoint blockade represents a particularly promising class of agents that block inhibitory molecules on the surface of T cells, resulting in their activation and propagation of an immune response. Treatment with these agents may re-invigorate anti-tumor immunity, resulting in therapeutic responses, and use of these agents currently is being studied in the adjuvant setting. Additionally, a strong rationale exists for their use in the neoadjuvant setting for high-risk resectable disease (e.g., regional nodal disease in the case of melanoma). This rationale is based on the relatively high risk of relapse for these patients, as well as on scientific evidence suggesting that long-term immunologic memory and tumor control may be superior in the setting of treatment for an intact tumor (i.e., neoadjuvant therapy) as opposed to treatment in the setting of micrometastatic disease (e.g., adjuvant treatment). The potential advantages of this approach and the current landscape for neoadjuvant immune checkpoint blockade is discussed in this report, as well as caveats that should be considered by clinicians contemplating this strategy.